MA Judge: Stop Saying 'Stop Snitching'
by TChris
The First Amendment right to free expression applies in courthouses, even if some might be offended by the message expressed. The Supreme Court in 1971 reversed the conviction of a man who wore a shirt in a courthouse that used a four-letter-word (yes, that one) to express the man’s negative feelings about the draft. The Court noted that the statute didn't address courtroom decorum, but was applicable across the state, rendering his presence in the courthouse irrelevant to the First Amendment inquiry.
A Massachusetts judge is unwilling to extend that precedent to protect the free speech rights of courthouse observers who express a message that is popular among criminal defense lawyers: "Stop Snitching." Expressing displeasure with tattle-tales seems harmless, but the judge viewed the shirts as an attempt to intimidate witnesses, and has banned the shirts from the courthouse.
[Judge Robert] Mulligan's policy, which takes effect immediately, says that anyone wearing "Stop Snitching" clothes will be barred from courthouses, and anyone seen wearing such clothing inside will be ejected.
Whether the prohibition violates the First Amendment presents an interesting question, as are the ramifications of the policy. What about a shirt that says “Presumed Innocent� Or “Don’t trust lawyers� What if an anti-snitch crusader attends a hearing where no witnesses are called and no jurors are present? Should the rules differ depending upon the ability of witnesses or jurors to read the shirt? Does an absolute ban on a particular message in a courthouse, regardless of circumstances, go too far?
Why, by the way, is "stop snitching" a good message to send? This TL post explains some of the problems that underlie the government's increasing reliance on unreliable snitches. (To learn about the TL version of the "stop snitching" shirt, go here.)
| < Wednesday Open Thread | Mich. Judge Thumbs Nose at Poor People's Right to Counsel > |
